A suggestion -- Obama can weigh in on collective bargaining without "interfering" in Wisconsin

[Armstead]

The Obama administration seems to be afraid to openly support the union/labor position in Wisconsin.

Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for that. If he were to actively call out Gov Walker, and take other actions to "interfere in a state issue" he would be open to criticism that he is overstepping his bounds -- and also losing focus on his job nationally.

However,that does not mean he needs to be silent or stand on the sidelines.

Instead, he can advocate strongly and unapologetically on the national level.

Ultimately this is not about one Governor and one state. It is part of a concerted effort by the GOP/Corporate Oligarchy to castrate unions and all workers and their rights, and weaken the Democratic infrastructure in the process.

Therefore it is totally legitimate for Obama to weigh in on this in very clear terms on a national level too. Focus on the fact that it is a national pattern, and educate people about the implications of what is being attempted.

....Just my opinion

[BadgerKid]

1. How? The Administration is under pressure to increase H-1B visas.

[Armstead]

2. Not sure I see the connection

[BadgerKid]

12. He'd be painted as either "for" or "against" American workers. n/t

[zipplewrath]

5. EFCA

Wouldn't now be a good time to push again for the EFCA? Good time to "brand" the GOP as anti-worker.
(Should be easy to do, they already are.)

[Armstead]

8. Baby Steps

Yes the Democrats did abandon that. They shoulod nlot have.

But at this point the very existence of unions is at stake. So first step now is to fight the GOP's efforts to totally eliminate organized labor.

[zipplewrath]

11. That's the Obama mantra

Expect less. Set your goals low. Abandon your goals and only try to achieve that which the GOP will allow.

[Armstead]

13. You're right

I don't like the fact that we've been backed into this corner myself.

Anyway it doesn't matter, as Obama is not likely to even take baby steps here

[polichick]

3. Sure he could - but that would require him not to be wishy-washy...

And if he's not wishy-washy people might know exactly where he stands.

[last_texas_dem]

4. I won't be holding my breath for that.

[jenmito]

6. Where have you been? He HAS weighed in on union-busting attempts by Walker and spoke out against it

and for the union workers. He HAS been accused of "interfering in a state issue."

[Armstead]

7. Sorta...

He hasn't said much after his brief "seems to be maybe" remark....And the attempt after that to distance the WH from having any involvement.

And yet, you are correct, he was accused of interfering by the GOP.

So maybe that means, since he's going to be criticized anyway, why the hell not plant a flag on this issue?

[Radical Activist]

9. Not sorta. He already did exactly what you're suggesting.

You have to look at what he's really doing and not simply believe what's being written about his actions by bloggers and reporters with an axe to grind. The idea that he distanced himself or hasn't spoken out is an imaginary construct invented by people putting their own spin on things. Look at what Obama has actually said, without paying attention to the media spin, and then make up your own mind.

[Armstead]

14. Maybe I missed that speech where he spelled all this out

Then again, maybe not

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

15. After one tepid statement, he has said nothing

[DrToast]

16. Do you think his position has changed?

Is he supposed to make a statement every day?

"Hey guys, you that stuff I said about Wisconsin the other day? Yeah, that."

[Armstead]

18. Maybe not every day -- But some engagement would be helpful

....Helpful for the future of the working class and politically helpful for him (and the Democrats) as an opportunity to actually stand up and be counted on a core issue.

[jenmito]

17. This is what he said in full:

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they’re firefighters and they’re social workers and they’re police officers. They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it’s important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.”

That's not tepid. He's the president-not a union leader or activist. He made himself clear. He's kind of busy right now with LOTS of things.

[Armstead]

19. A president should be an activist by definition

Otherwise he is just a pointless figurehead.

[jenmito]

20. You really moved the goalpost from your OP where you said, in large part:

"A suggestion -- Obama can weigh in on collective bargaining without "interfering" in Wisconsin

The Obama administration seems to be afraid to openly support the union/labor position in Wisconsin.

Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for that. If he were to actively call out Gov Walker, and take other actions to "interfere in a state issue" he would be open to criticism that he is overstepping his bounds -- and also losing focus on his job nationally.

However,that does not mean he needs to be silent or stand on the sidelines."

I and others showed you that he has NOT been silent on the issue, that he DIDN'T sit on the sidelines, and that he WASN'T afraid to openly support the union/labor position in Wisconsin.

[Armstead]

21. Look, first you misread my OP

You are being very defensive....My OP was simply my own suggestion of how he could deal with the issue, by addressing the broader issue on a nationwide basis, without interfering in Wisconsin directly, but not ignoring what it reflects nationally.

IMO, it would totally appropriate and constructive for him to clearly address the underlying issue that Wisconsin represents, and to advocate for the sides of labor and all workers.

At the time of the OP, I did not assume what he would or wouldn't do beyond his one little remark......Unfortunately, so far he has not done anything...but I did not assume that. So I have become more critical.

But this was not started as a "bash Obama" thread. It was merely some sidelines strategizing, which is often what we do here.

It might be useful if instead of looking to defend President Obama against every possible criticism, you look at individual circumstances on their own terms -- and not automatically assume that he needs to defended every time some criticizes, questions or makes suggestions regarding him

[jenmito]

22. "The Obama administration seems to be afraid to openly support the union/labor position in

the union/labor position in Wisconsin." You were shown quotes that refuted that. I'm not looking to defend Obama against every possible criticism. I'm proving you wrong.

[Armstead]

24. Either afraid or not interested

Perhaps that was a bit of a leading statement on my parter the time....But with the wisdom of hindsight, I'll stand by it.

He has not followed it up, despite the fact that it has been the dominant news issue of the week. His subsequent silence can only mean that he is either:
A) Afraid of taking a stronger stand on this as a national issue to avoid alienating who?

B) Does not believe it is important enough to put his weight behind

or perhaps some combination of the two

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.